2014
Published Librarian Research, 2008 through 2012:
Analyses and Perspectives
Selenay Aytac
Long Island University - C W Post Campus, [email protected]
Bruce Slutsky
New Jersey Institute of Technology, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/collaborativelibrarianship
Part of the
Scholarly Communication Commons
This Scholarly Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Collaborative Librarianship by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please [email protected],[email protected].
Recommended Citation
Aytac, Selenay and Slutsky, Bruce (2014) "Published Librarian Research, 2008 through 2012: Analyses and Perspectives," Collaborative Librarianship: Vol. 6 : Iss. 4 , Article 6.
Published Librarian Research, 2008 through 2012:
Analyses and Perspectives
Selenay Aytac ([email protected]
Long Island University
Bruce Slutsky ([email protected]) New Jersey Institute of Technology
Abstract
This research paper reviews published library science literature from 2008 through 2012 using a purpos-ive sample of 13 Library and Information Science (LIS) journals. The texts of 1,778 LIS articles were ana-lyzed and classified as research versus non-research. Of these articles, 769 (43.1%) determined as research were examined in order to collect data on numerous variables including authorship, topic, type of re-search, data collection, and data analysis techniques. The selected LIS journals draw a representative sample of practitioner research with 438 (57%) research articles solely written by practitioners, 110 (14.3%) research articles written collaboratively by at least one practitioner and one academic. The overall authorship pattern was widely multi-authored with 64.5% of the research articles written by two or more authors. It is hoped that the results of this investigation will provide insight for more extensive collabora-tive librarianship research in the future.
Keywords: Librarian research; Collaborative research; Bibliometrics
Introduction
Academic and research librarians, particularly those on tenure track, are required to demon-strate their ability to produce research and re-port their results in scholarly journals. More li-brarians are publishing to advance the profes-sion and attain career advancement. Further-more, research is needed for libraries to remain relevant and sustain their reputation for
knowledge discovery and innovation. What per-centage of scholarly articles is written by practic-ing librarians? What is the quality of their re-search? Systematic reviews of published librari-anship research may provide evidence of the characteristics and recent trends in practitioner research. There have been a number of papers published regarding Library and Information Science (LIS) practitioner research (Kloda, et al.,1
Koufogiannakis and Crumley,2 Watson-Boone,3
Hildreth,4 Hildreth and Aytac,5 Slutsky and
Ay-tac6). However, there have been no other studies
done to cover recent years with the selected 13 journals.
This research will emphasize practitioner-academic collaborations and will investigate the question: How do practitioner research, academ-ics’ research and practitioner-academic collabo-rative research differ? Here we define collabora-tive research as a paper written by two or more authors with at least one author who is a librari-an or information professional in librari-an academic, public, school, or special library and one aca-demic affiliated with an LIS program. There is a notable shift from individual to collaborative research projects.7 It is widely accepted that
col-laboration would increase the quality of re-search. According to Borgman and Furner,8
col-laboration is one of the main communicative activities among scholars. This is accomplished by two or more researchers sharing expertise and knowledge while investigating unknown phenomena. Numerous studies have attempted to investigate collaborative research.9, 10, 11, 12
One of the first scientific collaboration theories was developed by Beaver and Rosen.13, 14
Fer-nandez has discussed the changing face of sci-ence from individual to the collective.15
Conse-quently, this study will seek an answer to the following research questions:
1) What percentage of the selected LIS lit-erature qualifies as research?
2) Of the titles that include research, what percentage of the papers in each journal are research articles?
3) What are the subject, authorship, and methodology distributions of the re-search articles?
4) How different is practitioner from aca-demic’s research and practitioner-academic collaboration, or non-LIS affil-iated research?
Research is hereby defined as systematic inves-tigation of an unknown phenomenon for the purpose of generating new concepts or creation of new knowledge. Based on this definition, a research article must begin with a clearly de-fined goal, employ a research method, and at-tempt to thoroughly analyze the findings. Thus, book reviews, opinion pieces, and editorial notes will be excluded as they are not consid-ered “research articles.”
This study examined and revised the core jour-nal list of two recent studies: Hildreth and Ay-tac,16 and Kennedy and Brancolini.17
Further-more, the final determination of 13 selected journals was based on the background of the researchers. The table below shows the biblio-graphic data gathered from the three popular scholarly publishing resources. These are name-ly: (1) Ulrichsweb, (2) Journal Citation Report (JCR), and (3) Cabell’s Directories of Publishing (Cabell’s). Journal’s bibliographic information was gathered from Ulrichsweb, Impact Factors (IF) was taken from the JCR, and the acceptance rate of the journals obtained either from Cabell’s or from the journal editors. IF is a ratio between citations and published citable items and it has been used for ranking and comparing journals by Thomson Reuters. Both Cabell’s Directories and Thomson Reuters have their own criteria for selecting journals for inclusion. Since not all the selected 13 journals are included in the Thomson Reuters or in Cabell’s Directories journal list, there are missing data points in Table 1.
Library Science is one of the academic disci-plines that favors evidence-based decision mak-ing, which relies on rich and meaningful data. An increasing number of practitioners engage in the evaluation of their work for the purpose of advancing their professional services. This pa-per’s first section describes the research design and data collection methods. The following sec-tion presents the findings according to each re-search question, and the final section presents the conclusions, limitations, and recommenda-tions for future study.
Research Design and Methodology
This study examines the published librarianship research for the years 2008 to 2012 in order to provide feedback to the LIS community. Judg-ment sampling was used to select thirteen LIS journals which turned out to be a good repsentation of practitioner research; 71.3% of re-search articles were contributed by practitioners. The authors used a one page rubric of multiple factors including, but not limited to, authorship, topic, type of research, data collection, data and analysis techniques.
In order to test the research article data collec-tion rubric and examine the feasibility of re-search variables, a pilot study was conducted during the months of May and June, 2013, with two LIS journals, Library Trends and Issues in
Science and Technology Librarianship for the year
of 2012. The analysis of these two journals pro-vided convincing evidence that the project has the potential to proceed further.
The data collected from each research paper in-cluded the number of authors, and the nature of the authorship such as practitioner, academic, or student author. If it was a collaborative paper, the nature of the collaboration was coded. The affiliation(s) of each research paper was also listed. The topic, research approach, research methods, and data analysis techniques of each study were recorded between the months of June 2013 and March 2014.
Content analysis is an analytical process used in the social sciences, which requires the use of a hierarchical coding scheme, which consists of categories, sub-categories and related categories
of specific variables. It is an empirical method, exploratory in process, and predictive or infer-ential in intent.18 Topics in this study are
de-rived empirically from the articles during the qualitative coding. The main rationale for the coding procedure in this study was to be as spe-cific as possible during the procedure, because categories can be collapsed at a later stage but not be easily expanded to reveal finer details if only coded at the broad level.19,20 The coding
process for the topics was repeated a second time. In order to assess inter-coder reliability, the assigned topics were also coded by the sec-ond author simultaneously.
The data were first recorded on a standard Excel file. Data were screened to check if they were entered correctly, and if there were out of range or missing values. A significant portion of the journals was coded by the two authors simulta-neously in order to test inter-coder reliability. Coders worked together for the first two months of coding to reach 100% inter-coder reliability and continuously consulted with each other. SPSS software was used for final data entry and analysis.
Findings
To address Research Questions 1 and 2, the texts of 1,778 library and information science articles were first analyzed and classified as research versus non-research. Articles, such as news, commentary, book reviews, and opinion pieces were excluded from the analysis. As Table 2 shows, 769 (43.3%) articles were determined to be research articles and that percentage of the journal titles included were in the study. Furthermore, the bibliometric data analysis showed that the scientific growth rate of the re-search articles in our sample for the years 2008-2012 is dramatic. In order to monitor the trend, Web of Science (WoS) indexes (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Art & Humanities Citation Index) were used as a gen-eral data pool and the WoS Information Science & Library Science (LIS) research area as a subject specific index chosen for benchmarking. The growth in research is conventionally measured by the percentage of increase in annual growth in all three competitors over the years 2008-2012.
Table 3 presents the yearly variations in research production for the selected three samples. As it seen from Table 3, the annual proportional growth of practitioner research is widening in comparison to WoS LIS research and WoS Gen-eral Research for the respective years. However, one should note that a large proportional in-crease is not a large inin-crease in absolute value. Therefore, no conclusions should be made as to causality from the data presented in Figure 1, which should be seen as trend data. As Figure 1 shows, practitioner research has the highest proportional increase.
To address Research Question 3, we have ana-lyzed authorship, and methodologies distribu-tion, and the topic of each article. The purposive sample of selected journals proved to be a good representation of practitioner research with 438 (57%) research articles solely written by practi-tioners, 110 (14.3%) research articles written col-laboratively by at least one practitioner and one academic, 205 (26.6%) research articles solely written by LIS Academics, and 16 (2.1%) of the articles written by others (Table 4). Among this “other” group we see authors either with no affiliation listed or an affiliation not related to any type of library or information center, or with a job title not related to the information professions.
Furthermore, the overall authorship pattern dis-played a highly multi-authored sample in that 64.5% of the research articles were written by two or more authors (Table 5).
Each research paper in our sample has been coded as having “Quantitative,” “Qualitative,” or “Mixed” methodologies. As Figure 3 shows, the majority of the research studies in our sam-ple used only quantitative data analysis tech-niques at 69.4% (534). Qualitative-only studies make up 12.5% (96) of the studies examined. Finally, 139 studies (18.1%) used both quantita-tive and qualitaquantita-tive methods with regard to the type of data analysis also known as “triangula-tion” or “methodological pluralism.”21
Moreover, each study in our review was coded to reflect its research approach as descriptive, explanatory, exploratory, evaluative, and
multi-ple or combined. Figure 4 shows the number of studies in each category. Most of the studies are “descriptive” at 73.9% (568). Descriptive re-search aims to describe the observed phenome-non accurately. This is followed by popular re-search approach “exploratory” at 15.5% (119). Exploratory research enables the exploration of new phenomena. Some studies are “evaluative” at 9% (69); evaluative research aims to test a cer-tain service or program. Quality control or per-formance analysis is a good example of evalua-tive research. The least popular “explanatory” only at 0.7% (5), explanatory research seeks an explanation to the question “Why?”22 In this
sample we also found a few
Multi-ple/Combined research studies that correspond only at 1.0% (8).
Content analysis identified that “Survey” and “Content analysis” were the most popular re-search methods in our sample followed by “In-terviews” and “Bibliometric Analysis.” We found 108 (14.04%) studies use at least two re-search methodologies. Table 5 shows the list of methodologies employed, their frequency, and their percentage.
We also coded each research article for the sta-tistical analysis employed. Not surprisingly, “descriptive” statistical analysis was the most frequently used technique among the articles with 74.0% (560). The second most frequently used statistical analysis technique was correla-tional analysis, which was employed by 41 stud-ies with the ratio of 5.3%, followed by inferential statistical analysis with 4.2% (32), and multiple analysis with 2.6% (20) as seen from the Figure 5.
The topics of research papers varied from librar-ies and librarianship to publishing as is seen from Table 6. Not surprisingly, libraries and li-brarianship was the most popular at 146
(18.99%), followed by library users/information seeking at 101 (13.13%), medical
infor-mation/research at 98 (12.75%), reference ser-vices at 90 (11.71%), library resources at 75 (9.75%), information literacy at 59 (7.67%), tech-nical services at 65 (7.02%), information and communication technologies at 37 (4.81%), social media tools at 24 (3.12%), research and science at 23 (2.99%), bibliometric and citation analysis at
20 (2.60%), science information resources at 18 (2.34%), and publishing at 10 (1.30%).
In order to answer Research Question 4, “How different is practitioner from academic’s re-search and practitioner-academic collaboration, or non-LIS affiliated research?”, five separate chi squares were performed. In this analysis, each chi square compared four groups: practitioners (f=438) academics (f=205) collaborators (f=110) and others (f=16).
We coded each research paper according to the location of the study, more specifically as to whether the study was site specific or site inde-pendent. The first chi square examined the loca-tion of the study. A significant difference was found among the group members (χ²(3, N=769)=18.619, p=.000). While practitioners (n=228, 52.3%) and collaborators (n=62, 53.1%) conducted more site specific or “in house” re-search, academics (n=131, 63.9%) and non-LIS affiliated others (n=10, 62.5%) investigated site independent phenomena in their research pa-pers.
The studies have also been examined to deter-mine if the context of their research was aca-demic library, public library, special library, or miscellaneous. The second chi square examined the context of their research. A significant differ-ence was found among the group members re-garding the context of the research (χ²(9, N=769)=102.398, p=.000). The majority of practi-tioner research focused on academic libraries (n=359, 82.0%) and special libraries (n=23, 5.3%). Academics conducted most of the public library research (n=22, 10.7%).
Furthermore, the research approach for each paper was coded as descriptive, explanatory, exploratory, or evaluative. The third chi square examined their research approach. Significant differences among the four types of authorships were noted with respect to the selection of re-search approach (χ²( (12, N=769)=43.116,
p=.000). Practitioners primarily employed
de-scriptive research approach (n=350, 79.9%) as did the collaborators (n=80, 81.2%). Academics used descriptive research as well (n=123, 60%) but also conducted exploratory (n=53, 25.9%) and evaluative (n=24, 11.7%) studies. Not
sur-prisingly, collaborators conducted the most evaluative research (n=15, 13.6%).
In a similar vein, the fourth chi square revealed significant differences among the groups in terms of employing quantitative versus qualita-tive, or combined, data analysis (χ²( (6,
N=769)=27,045, p=.000). While practitioners (n=319, 72.8%) and collaborators (n=81, 73.6%) mainly chose quantitative data analysis tech-niques, academics used both quantitative (n=120, 58.5%) and qualitative (n=44, 21.5%) as well as both analyses in one single study (n=41, 20%).
In line with the earlier findings, the fifth chi square test revealed significant differences among the four authorships for the selection of statistical analysis technique (χ²( (12,
N=769)=57.328, p=.000). Practitioners (n=360, 82.2%) and collaborators (n=81, 73.6%) primarily used descriptive statistical analysis. Academics on the other hand, also employed correlational (n=19, 9.3%), and inferential statistics (n=16, 7.8%).
Discussion
In this article, we call attention to increasing and more collaborative LIS practitioner research. In order to answer RQ1 and RQ2, the texts of 1,778 library and information science articles were analyzed and classified as research versus non-research. There were 769 (43.1%) journal articles to be research articles. Of the LIS journals that include research, Journal of the Medical Library
Association contained the highest number of
re-search papers followed by College & Rere-search
Libraries, Reference Services Review, and Health Information & Libraries Journal.
Our findings suggest that the annual propor-tional growth of practitioner research is widen-ing in comparison to WoS LIS research and WoS General Research for the respective years. The scientific growth rate of the research in our sample for the years 2008-2012 is dramatic. In order to monitor the trend, Web of Science (WoS) indexes (Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Art & Humanities Citation Index) were used as a general data pool and WoS Information Science & Library Science
(LIS) research area as a subject specific index chosen for benchmarking. The growth in re-search is conventionally measured with the per-centage of increase in annual growth in all three competitors over the years 2008-2012. The find-ings suggest that the annual growth of practi-tioner research is widening and we predict that this trend will continue. Because of this acceler-ated pace, we conclude that the amount of re-search articles one must read to conduct a rea-sonable review of an LIS topic keeps growing. What implications will this have for librarians, particularly on the tenure track? The expectation of productivity raises the demand on younger library practitioners. Since the majority of aca-demic librarians have become publish-or-perish entrepreneurs they need more publications to compete for tenure and promotion. Research is a required component of many academic or re-search library jobs.
To address Research Question 3, we have ana-lyzed authorship, methodologies distribution, and the topic of each article. The purposive sample of the selected journals proved to be a good representation of practitioner research with 438 (57%) research articles solely written by practitioners, and110 (14.3%) research articles written collaboratively by at least one practi-tioner and one academician. The overall author-ship pattern displayed a highly collaborative sample and found that 64.5% of the research articles were written by two or more authors. Collaboration can facilitate these efforts. Librari-ans wanting to publish should seek out col-leagues with different expertise to hopefully form a synergistic relationship. Furthermore, LIS academics can take advantage of librarians’ ex-pertise by forming faculty-practitioner collabo-rations. A future study should explore why and how practitioners and academics collaborate and what skills are required for successful search partnerships. Librarian-LIS faculty re-search funds may foster rere-search collaboration and facilitate the trend toward more collabora-tive research.
At the same time, the analysis indicates that practitioners employ both quantitative and qual-itative research methods, but prominently quan-titative and descriptive statistical analysis. The most common sources of data collection in
qual-itative research are interviews, observations, focus groups, and content analysis. In addition, content analysis identified that “Survey” and “Content analysis” were the most popular re-search methods in our sample followed by “In-terviews” and “Bibliometric Analysis.” Many academic librarians may hesitate to engage in qualitative research involving human subjects because they are reluctant to go through the In-stitutional Review Board process. Understand-ing how human subject research fits into LIS research and subsequently into the everyday life of a librarian can help frame our own percep-tions of what we do. We need to re-evaluate our understanding of Institutional Review Board and human subject research in our role as librar-ians and researchers. Our findings on the use of statistical methods are in line with findings of Hildreth and Aytac.23 Since practitioners and
collaborators primarily use descriptive statistical analysis, they should seek out training in more advanced statistical methods. Perhaps the LIS curriculum should be revisited for advanced statistical training courses. Continuous educa-tion programs should be designed that can make statistics fun, easy, and simple for librarians. Otherwise, consultation of a statistician or mak-ing a statistician part of the research project is necessary.
In order to answer Research Question 4, five separate chi squares were performed to evaluate whether practitioner research, academic’s search, practitioner-academic collaborative re-search, and the group identified as others differ. For instance, we wanted to see whether research approach or data analysis technique differed depending on which of the four groups of peo-ple conducted research. Our results suggested that there is a significant difference among these four different groups on five different variables such as (1) location of the study, (2) context of research, (3) research approach, (4) data analysis and (5) statistical analysis. While practitioners and collaborators conducted more site specific or “in house” research, academics and non-LIS affiliated others investigated site independent phenomena in their research papers. The majori-ty of practitioner research focused on academic libraries and special libraries. However, academ-ics conducted most of the public library re-search. Practitioners primarily employed
de-scriptive research approach as did the collabora-tors. Academics used descriptive research as well but also conducted exploratory and evalua-tive studies. Not surprisingly, collaborators conducted the most evaluative research. While practitioners and collaborators mainly chose quantitative data analysis techniques, academics used both quantitative and qualitative as well as both analyses in one single study. Hopefully these findings will underscore the importance of practitioner research and attract attention to the impact of LIS practitioner research on the eve-ryday life of information seeking and libraries.
Conclusions
In conclusion, based on the findings of this study, monitoring practitioner research should be a continuous process. This article provides a reference point for future research, which should continue exploring practitioner-academic collaborative research, and should create a sam-ple of only this type of collaboration. A new re-search fund that aims to support librarian-LIS academic collaborative research should be creat-ed in order to enable these types of research ini-tiatives. One of the limitations of the study is the purposive selection of the sample of 13 periodi-cals both with solicited and unsolicited LIS jour-nals. Moreover, this study should be repeated including more international and non-English content library science journals in the next stage of the project. A future study should explore why and how practitioners and academics col-laborate and the skills required for a successful research partnership.
Given the analysis of research conducted by li-brarians from 2008 to 2012, a further question arises of how to increase high-quality library practitioner work. University and other research libraries should form mentoring projects for young librarians, which would assist librarians in pursuing high quality research more quickly and aggressively in their very first probationary years. Some colleges are already beginning to do so, but a nationally coordinated effort is needed to increase the quality of library practitioner re-search. This would have far-reaching and enor-mously beneficial effects on the future of LIS research.
Table 1. LIS Journals selected for the study.
Figure 1. Trend data of WoS research growth versus our sample.
Table 3. The yearly variations in research productivity in 3 samples for the respected years
Table 4. Frequency of authorship
Publication
Our
Proportional
WoS
Proportional
WoS
Proportional
Year
Sample
Growth
LIS Res.
Growth
Gen Res.
Growth
2008
124
2869
1094675
2009
145
16.94%
3079
7.32%
1137740
3.93%
2010
163
31.45%
3225
12.41%
1184616
8.22%
2011
170
37.10%
3358
17.04%
1256251
14.76%
2012
167
34.68%
3407
18.75%
1306692
19.37%
Frequency Percent
Practitioner
438
57
Academic
205
26.6
Collaboration(P&A)
110
14.3
Other
16
2.1
Total
769
100
Figure 2. Number of authors per research
Figure 4. Research Approach
Table 5. Research methods employed by the Research Articles
Research Method
f
Percentag
Survey
361
40.43%
Content Analysis
311
34.83%
Interviews
88
9.85%
Bibliometric Analysis 41
4.59%
Focus Group
35
3.92%
Case Study
29
3.25%
Observation
10
1.12%
Usability Study
8
0.90%
Ethnographic Study
6
0.67%
Delphi Study
2
0.22%
Card Sorting
1
0.11%
Phenomenography
1
0.11%
Total
893
Figure 5. Statistical analysis
Table 6. Topics of the Research Articles
Topic Frequency Percentage
Libraries and Librarianship (Academic, Public, School) 146 18.99%
Library Users/information seeking 101 13.13%
Medical Information/research 98 12.75%
Reference Services 90 11.71%
Library Resources (including E-resources) 75 9.75%
Information Literacy 59 7.67%
Technical Services (including Cataloging and Classification) 54 7.02%
Information and Communication Technologies 37 4.81%
Social Media Tools 24 3.12%
Research and Science 23 2.99%
Bibliometrics and Citation Analysis 20 2.60%
Science Information Resources 18 2.34%
Others 14 1.82%
Publishing 10 1.30%
Endnotes
___________________________________________
1 Lorie A. Kloda, Denise Koufogiannakis and
Katrine Mallan, “Transferring Evidence into Practice: What Evidence Summaries of Library and Information Studies Research Tell Practitioners,” Information Research: An
International Electronic Journal 16, no.1 (2011):
16 pages.
2 Denise Koufogiannakis and Ellen Crumley,
“Research in Librarianship: Issues to Consider,” Library Hi Tech 24, no.3 (2006): 324-340.
3 Rebecca Watson-Boone, “Academic Librarians
as Practitioner-Researchers,” The Journal of
Academic Librarianship 26, no.2 (2000): 85-93. 4 Charles R. Hildreth, “How Are They Going
About It? A Comparison of Research Methods Used by LIS Academic and Practitioner Researchers,” Annual Meeting of
the Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE), (January 21-24,
2003) Philadelphia, PA.
5 Charles R. Hildreth and Selenay Aytac,
“Recent Library Practitioner Research: A Methodological Analysis and Critique,”
Journal of Education for Library and
Information Science 48, no.3 (2007): 236-252. 6 Bruce Slutsky and Selenay Aytac, “Publication
Patterns of Science, Technology, and Medical Librarians: Review of the 2008-2012 Published Research,” Science & Technology
Libraries, 33 no.4 (2014): 369-382.
7 Stephen Wuchty, Benjamin Uzzi, and Brian
Jones, “The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge,” Science 316 no.5827 (2007): 1036-1039.
8 Christine L. Borgman and Jonathan Furner,
“Scholarly Communication and Bibliometrics” in Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology 36
(Medford: Information Today Inc., 2002), pp. 3-71.
9 Terttu Luukkonen, Olle Persson and Gunnar
Sivertsen, “Understanding Patterns of International Scientific Collaboration,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 17 no.1 (1992): 101-126.
10 Marcia Bordons and Isabel Gomez,
“Collaboration Networks in Science,” in The
Web of Knowledge. Ed. by B. Cronin and H. B.
Atkins. ASIS Monograph Series. (New Jersey, Information Today, 2000), pp. 197-213.
11 Wolfgang Glanzel, “National Characteristics
in International Scientific Co-authorship Relations, Scientometrics, 51 no.1 (2001): 69-115.
12 Tibor Braun and Andras Schubert, “The
Growth of Research on Inter- and Multi-Disciplinarity in Science and Social Science Papers, 1975-2006” Scientometrics 73 no.3 (2007): 345-351.
13 Donald D. Beaver and R. Rosen, “Studies in
Scientific Collaboration: Part I. The Professional Origins of Scientific Co-authorship,” Scientometrics 1 (1978): 65-84.
14 Donald D. Beaver and R. Rosen, “Studies in
Scientific Collaboration: Part II. Scientific Co-authorship, Research Productivity and Visibility in the French Scientific Elite, 1799-1830” Scientometrics 1 no.2 (1979): 133-149.
15 Julio A. Fernandez, “The Transition from an
Individual Science to a Collective One: The Case of Astronomy,” Scientometrics 42 no.1 (1998): 61-74.
16 Ibid.
17 Marie R. Kennedy and Kristine R. Brancolini,
“Academic Librarian Research: A Survey of Attitudes, Involvement, and Perceived Capabilities,” College and Research Libraries 73, no.5 (2012): 431-448.
18 Klaus Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. (Thousand
Oaks, Calif: Sage 2004).
19 Carl F. Auerbach and Louise B. Silverstein, Qualitative Data: an Introduction to Coding and
Analysis. (NY: New York University Press
2003).
20 Bruce L. Berg, Qualitative Research Methods for Social Science.”(3rd ed.). (MA: Allyn and
Bacon 1998).
21 Norman K. Denzin, Interpretive Interactionism,”
(Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1989).
22 Lynn S. Connaway and Ronald Powell, Basic Research Methods for Librarians, 5th Ed.
(Westport, CT: ABC-CLIO, 2010) Retrieved from http://www.ebrary.com
23 Charles R. Hildreth and Selenay Aytac,
“Recent Library Practitioner Research: A Methodological Analysis and Critique.”